Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
THE DATE OF VIDYANANDA : LITERARY AND EPIGRAPHICAL
EVIDENCE
M. A. Dhaky Vidyānanda, and Māņikyanandi (of the Parikṣāmukha fame), the pontiffs of the Southern Church, alongwith Siddharşi (active c. A. D. 880-920)' of the Northern Church, belong to the last batch of the great epistemologists within the ambit of the Brhad-Nirgrantha tradition. Vidyānanda's known works, some of which are famous, are the Tattvārtha-śloka-vārttika?, the Aștasahasri, the Yuktyanusāsanālankāra", the Vidyananda-mahodaya', the Apta-pariksa", the Pramāna-parīksa', the Patra-parīksa, the satyaśāsana-parīksā', and the Śrīpura-Pārsvanātha-stotra. The writers of this century had for long been placing him between the last quarter of the eighth and the first quarter of the ninth century A. D. and thus to the pre-medieval times. While late K. B. Pathak is one of the earliest to situate him in c. A. D. 816, but without producing much supporting evidence, it was Darbarilal Kothiya who collected much of the vital evidence which had bearing on the issue and presented it in his "Introduction" in Hindi to Vidyānanda's Apta-parīksa where he almost convincingly fixed his date to c. A. D. 775-840" Kothiya's main points (which incidentally includes, according to his method of investigation, an observation that Vidyānanda did not anywhere refute Vācaspati Miśra, the famous mid 9th century scholiast and commentator of the works belonging to various darśanas) had been summarized by Gokul Chandra Jain in his “Introduction" in Hindi to the Satyaśāsan[a] Parikṣā, pp. 29-31. Nathmal Tatiya, in his prefatory paper, "A compendium of Vidyānanda's Satyaśāsana-pariksä” to the Satyaśāsan[a] Parīksă edited by Jain, had, however, pointed out that Vidyānanda, in the Satyaśāsana-parikṣā, had in point of fact quoted an inaugural verse from the Bhamati-tīkä on the Nyaya-vārttika of Udyotakara (c. 6th-7th cent. A. D.) as cited by Vācaspati Miśra, and also had drawn attention to a reference by Vidyānanda to Miśra himself at another place there as "Nyäyavārttikakāra"12 Seemingly based on the indicators in Tatiya's prefatory, Jain, in his aforementioned "Introduction," cited the relevant verse and the phrase from Vidyānanda, which went against Kothiya's assertion that Vidyānanda did not refute Vācaspati Miśra"3. Vidyānanda, on this showing, has to be placed some time after A. D. 850. Since the style of writing of Vidyānanda (as of Siddharși's) and also the phrasing, choice of words, as well as approach betray the colour and flavour of medievalism, further doubts arise about his so far conceded early date. In point of fact, the suspicion is well-founded as will now be shown. For determining Vidyānanda's more precise date, a re-engraved copy in c. mid 12th century of an earlier inscription of ś.s.993/A. D. 1071-1072 from Gävarvad (medieval Gāvarivāda) in Karnataka! is very helpful. In this inscription, the donee is a Digambara Jaina divine Tribhuvanacandra whose hagiological history is given, and therein Vidyananda finds a mention as a confrére of Manikyanandi. (See the Table appended at the paper's end.)
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
The inscription gives one information which is crucial in determining Vidyānanda's date. It states that Ganga Permadi (Satyavākya Permānadi alias Mārasimha II (who is not the Ganga prince Satyavākya Rācamalla II), founded a Jaina temple at Annigere (Annigeri) in memory of his father Ganga Būtuga II (and this is not Būtuga I as Kothiya had determined, or surmised or may be had depended on some other earlier scholar's determination) and handed it over to Guņakirtti, the disciple of Mānikyanandi; and Mänikyanandi has been mentioned there as a confrère, possibly senior, of Vidyānanda. The known dates, according to the available inscriptions, of Ganga Permādi fall between c. A. D. 962 and 974. The Annigere temple, therefore, may plausibly have been founded and made over to Gunakīrtti during those years. Assuming that Gunakīrtti's guru Mānikyanandi by that date was not alive and Gunakirtti himself was fairly advanced in age, the date of Manikyanandi, and hence of Vidyānanda, can be broadly bracketed between A. D. 900-950 or about 100-125 years posterior to what had been surmised by Kothiya and the writers beforels and after him. In this connection Barnnet's remarks are worth noting. "One is tempted to identify this pair of scholars with the famous Vidyānanda-Pátrakesari and the latter's disciple Mānikyanandi, who wrote the Parīkshā-Mukha and its commentary Prameya-chandrikā. But Mr. Pathak has shown reasons for believing that VidyānandaPātrakēsari is referred to in the preface of Jinasena's Adi-purana, and that the former was an older contemporary of Manikyanandi, the author of Pariksha-mukha; and Jinasēna's latest date is Saka 820 (J.B.B.R.S. 1892, p. 219 ff.) Now the Mānikyanandi of our inscription must have been living shortly before Saka 890, since his disciple Gunakirtti was contemporary with the Ganga Permāļi, hence the gap between the two dates cannot be bridged over." But Jinasena in the Adipurāna (c. A. D. 830-839) referred to Pátrakesari and not to Vidyānanda : For Vidyānanda and Pātrakesari, though for long confounded, are not the same persons. Pārrakesari is an earlier Digambara epistemologist who flourished some time in the seventh century as was conclusively proven by Jugalkishor Mukhtar". Also, Mānakyanandi was not the disciple but, as has been shown, the confrère of Vidyānanda as is clear from the Gāvarvād inscription. And the temporal bracket of the concerned Ganga Permādi's activities is c. A. D. 962974. The epithets mahāvādi (the great dialectician) for Vidyānanda and tārkikärka (the sun among logicians) for Manikyanandi used in the inscription, leave no doubt that no other Vidyānanda and Manikyanandi but those two illustrious epistemologists are implicit in that context. Likewise, this is the only inscription which mentions these two notable figures. Also, the divine Tribhuvanacandra's claim of succession from those two illustrious pontiffs does neither seem spurious ror a pretence. No attempt at appropriation of these great names by way of establishing a glorious lineage for himself can be smelled in the draft; or else, some other wellknown names such as Samantabhadra, Pätrakesarī, Devanandi, and Akalankadēva could as well have figured. The hagiography has all the
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Vol. 11-1996
The Date of Vidyānanda....
27
appearance of being unambiguous and hence of indubitable genuineness. The temporal bracket of Vidyānanda, on this showing, can now firmly be ascertained to have been between A. D. 900 and 950 as noted earlier in the discussions
Mūla Sangha-Nandi Sangha (Valgāra-gaña)
Gangānvaya-guru Vardhamāna
Mahävädi Vidyānanda-svami
Tärkikara Manikyanandi
+
Gunakīrtti
Contemporary of Ganga Permādi (c. A. D. 962-974)
Vimalacandra
Gunacandra
Gandavimukta I
Abhaynandi
Siddhāntika
Sakalacandra
Sarvamalănvita Gandavimukta II
Mantravādi Tribhuvanacandra
(Ins. A. D. 1071-1072)
ANNOTATIONS : 1. Siddharsi's most famous works are the Upamitibhavaprapanca-katha (Sanskrit) (A. D.
905) and his commentary in Sanskrit (c. A. D. 900) on the Upadeśamālā of Sanghadāsa gani (c. mid 6th cent. A. D.). Recently, I have shown that the Nyāyāvatāra, a famous dvātrimsika in Sanskrit on the Nirgrantha pramānaśāstra, is not the work of Siddhasena Divakara (c. A. D. 400-444) as had been held by many but of Siddharsi : (Cf. "The Date and Authorship of Nyāyāvatāra”, Nirgrantha I, Ahmedabad 1996.) Also may be added the sakrastava as Siddharsi's work, though hitherto steadfastly, insistently, but wrongly attributed to Siddhasena Divākara. This is a further commentary on the southern adoption of the Tattvarthādhigamasutra of Umāsvāti (c. A. D. 350-375), the latter work is called the Tattvārtha-sūtra
in the fold of the Digambara Jaina sect. 3. This is an enlarged commentary incorporating the Astašati of Bhatta Akalankadeva
(active c. A. D. 730-780) on the Aptamimamsă of Samantabhadra (C. A. D. 575-625). 4. The work is a commentary on the Yuktyanuśāsana of Samantabhadra. 5. Vidyānanda has referred to this work in his Tattvārtha-śloka-vārttika and in
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
the Astasahasri. The work till now is unavailable. 6. The work has been inspired by the inaugural verse of the Sarvarthasiddhi-tīkä on the
Tattvärtha-sutra by Pujyapāda Devanandi (active c. A. D. 635-680). 7. Probably inspired by Akalankadeva's Pramāna-sangraha as well as plausibly some other
works of a few preceding authors.
8. It embodies a critical analysis on the characteristics of 'patra'. 9. The work compares the epistemological stands of other philosophical schools with
that of the Nirgrantha. Ed. Gokul Chandra Jain, JMJGSG No. 30, Calcutta-VaranasiDelhi 1964. The information in annotations 1-9,11, and 12 in this paper has been abstracted from Gokul Chandra's "Introduction" in Hindi of the selfsame work, pp. 32-34.
10. This is a hymn addressed to Jina Pārsva of Sripura, the latter place was a tirtha in
that period, situated as it probably was somewhere in Karnataka. 11. Cf. G. C. Jain, "Introduction" to SSP. 12. Tatia, "A Compendium.," p. 13. 13. Jain, p. 8. There is also other evidence inside Vidyānanda's work. For example his
citing from Süreśvara Misra's Sambandha-värttika. Sürēśvarācārya was the principal disciple of Sankarācārya whose traditional date is A. D. 780-812. The reference to 'Satyavākyadhipa' in some of the Vidyānanda's works had been taken by Kothiya (and possibly by Pathak) as Ganga Rācamalla Satyavākya, the nephew and successor of Ganga Śivamāra I (Jain, "Introduction," p.31.) However, "Satyavākya" was also the title of Ganga Permanadi (Mārasimha II) (c. A. D. 963-974), son of Ganga Būtuga II.
And it is he who is implied in the context under discussion 14. Cf. L. D. Barnett, "Two inscriptions from Gawarwad and Annigeri of the Reign of
Somesvara II : Saka 993 and 994," Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XV, 1919-20, pp. 337-348. 15. Cf. Mahendrakumar Jain, "2. The Authors, T. Vidyānanda :" Siddhivinishchaya-tika of
Shri Anantaviryacharya, the commentary on Siddhivinishchaya and its Vritti of Bhatta Akalanka Deva, 7 Jnanapitha Murtidivi Jain, Granthamālā, SG 22, V.S. 2015 (A. D. 1959), pp. 49, 50. Pt. Jugal Kishor Mukhtar also believed Vidyānanda to be of ninth century. (Cf. "Svāmi Pātrakesari aur Vidyānanda," Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa par Visada
Prakāśa, (Hindi). Calcutta 1965, p. 652. 16. Cf. Barnett, pp.338, infra 2. 17. Cf. "Swami Pātrakesari.," Jaina Sahitya aur Itihäsa. pp.637-667. 18. Vidyadhara Joharapurkar, in his "Introduction", summarizes the content of the
Gāvarvāda inscription but offers no comment on the implications which have a vital bearing on the date of Vidyānanda as also of Manikyanandi. (Cf. Jaina silalekha Sangraha, MDJG No. 48, Varanasi V. N. 2491/A. D.1964, pp. 10, 11.)